頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 協助拒絕接受服務之家庭進入早療體系--方案發展與評估=Developing and Evaluating a Service Program for Assisting the Involuntary Families Who Have a Child with Developmental Delay |
---|---|
作 者 | 周月清; 朱鳳英; 許昭瑜; 劉玉珊; 蔡秀妹; 黃鈴雅; 黃淑文; | 書刊名 | 臺大社會工作學刊 |
卷 期 | 4 2001.06[民90.06] |
頁 次 | 頁97+99-161 |
分類號 | 547.51 |
關鍵詞 | 早期療育; 發展遲緩兒童家庭; 非自願性案主服務策略; 以家庭為中心及到宅為基礎服務; 職務中心方法; 介入研究; Early intervention; Developmental delay; Intervention research; Home based services; Involuntary clients; Task centered approaches; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究之目的乃藉用介入研究典範 (intervention research paradigm) 之 「設計與發展」 (Design & Development; D & D) 針對台北市早期療育通報轉介中心發展一套服務模式 (自變項) 協助拒絕接受早期療育服務家庭進入平療體系 (依變項) 。 服務模式的發展包括四個步驟:需求評量、方案發展、方案的執行與方案評估。在需求評量部份,社工員以家訪方式進行,並藉由一份自擬問卷收集案家不接受服務的原因,同時在問卷中也以七份標準化量表,評量家庭的社會網絡支持功能,作為服務介入前後的前後測分數。方案的發展則依據需求評量結果,整合非自願性案主服務策略,以家庭為中心、到宅為基礎服務,職務中心家庭問題解決方法,及實務工作者之臨床經驗達成。方案的執行由台北市早期療育通報轉介中心五名社工人員,從事為期四週八單元的服務介入,在服務輸送後,再以同樣之標準化量表從事後測的評量,以檢視比方案執行結果是否有效。效果評估基於兩個假設: (1) 為期四週之本方案介入後,案家不再拒絕接受早期療育服務; (2) 為期四週之本方案介入後,案家在「夫妻」、「自己的父母」、「配偶的父母」、「其他家人 (親戚) 」、「朋友、同事或鄰居」、「保母」、及「尋常人員」等的認知、接納、協助與互動關係上的分數,會比介入前分數達顯著性的差異:過程評估則在檢視方案之可行性,作為修正方案之依據;資料收集的對象與來源為:參與之家庭在問卷中對此方案之回應,社工員介入期間社工督導會議中的紀錄,以及在方案執行結束時以一個焦點團體針對此方案執行之成功、失敗、與困難處予以探討。 本方案在2000年七月開始進行,當時拒絕接受服務者初步統計約有87個家庭,經由二次讓認有34個家庭接受前測與初訪,但在初訪之後有26個家庭即同意接受早療服務,最後只有八個家庭是屬於拒絕接受服務與需要介入本方案者,因此只有進入個家庭完成本方案的執行與後測。結果評估發現本方案是有效的,方案結束後入個家庭都已進入早療體系,並在結案當天轉介給個案管理中心個管員;另本方案對此八個家庭來自「朋友、同事或鄰居」及「專業人員」的社會支持有正面影響,且這統計上的顯著。此模式也在評估完成後進行修正,此修正後之介入模式擬推廣至各個執行兒童早療之個管中心,作為個管中心個管員介入這些家庭的實務參考。 |
英文摘要 | This study utilized the Intervention Research Paradigm, Design and Development (D & D),for innovating and testing a service program to assist the families who reject receiving the Early Intervention Services in Taipei City because of having a preschool child with developmental delay. The intervention design and development include four procedures - needs assessment, intervention design and development, the intervention implementation, and evaluation. The needs assessment was based on the social workers home visiting and also interviewed with families, who were invited to complete the self-report standardized questionnaires for the pretest including the support from their spouses, parents, parents-inlaw, relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors, and professionals. The intervention development was in accordance with three components: first, the results of needs assessment; second, integration of the literature review such as family-centered and home-based services, strategies working with involuntary clients, family preservation services, and task-centered approaches; and third, the practitioner's practical experiences. Five social workers, working in the Early Intervention Center of Taipei City, were charged with carrying out the intervention, eight sessions in four weeks. The process and outcome evaluations of the intervention were tested using a pre-experimental research design, one-group pretest-post-test design. After the first contact 87 families who were transferred from the case managers and found that only eight families who rejected receiving the Early Intervention Services. As a result, only these eight families completed the intervention including the pre-test and post-test. The outcomes of the study found that after the intervention all eight families were willing to have their children receiving the Early Intervention Services. The scores of family support from their friends, colleagues, neighbors and professionals showed significantly higher in the post-test than pre-test. On the other hand, the score of family support from their spouses, parents, parents-in-law were not significantly difference between the pre-test and post-test. After the evaluation of this pilot test, the intervention model was refined and the directions of dissemination were discussed as well. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。